Killing Greyhounds
on
Economic Grounds
Above - Henry was taken to the vets by his owner and his destruction was ordered, before a rescue stepped in and saved his life.
THE GBGB GREEN RETIREMENT FORM
Please note the highlighted Section; D)
Tick box option; Euthanasia
'Injury not treated
on economic grounds'.
Tick box option; Euthanasia
'Injury not treated
on economic grounds'.
Individuals within the pro racing community have recently suggested that the above specified option 'Injury not treated on economic grounds' should be removed from the GBGB green retirement form.
While we fully support any efforts to prevent greyhounds from being destroyed on economic grounds, we have legitimate concerns as to whether any such amendment would be misleading and fail to have the desired effect unless fully enforced by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 or incorporated into the current rules as stated within the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010, to bring assurance that dogs will not continue to be destroyed on economic grounds following any amendment (as suggested) to the GBGB green retirement form.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111490914
Below is an open letter that we have written to the self governing body of the British greyhound racing industry, the 'Greyhound Board of Great Britain'.
If you share our concerns
Please copy and paste the open letter in its original form and send it to:
Mr Duncan Gibson, Manager of Welfare and Integrity Services at the Greyhound Board of Great Britain.
[email protected]
Please note: This letter is to be used in its original form only. Written permission must be sought before amending any information taken from this website.
While we fully support any efforts to prevent greyhounds from being destroyed on economic grounds, we have legitimate concerns as to whether any such amendment would be misleading and fail to have the desired effect unless fully enforced by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 or incorporated into the current rules as stated within the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010, to bring assurance that dogs will not continue to be destroyed on economic grounds following any amendment (as suggested) to the GBGB green retirement form.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2010/9780111490914
Below is an open letter that we have written to the self governing body of the British greyhound racing industry, the 'Greyhound Board of Great Britain'.
If you share our concerns
Please copy and paste the open letter in its original form and send it to:
Mr Duncan Gibson, Manager of Welfare and Integrity Services at the Greyhound Board of Great Britain.
[email protected]
Please note: This letter is to be used in its original form only. Written permission must be sought before amending any information taken from this website.
Dear Mr Gibson,
Manager of Welfare and Integrity Services at the Greyhound Board of Great Britain.
We understand that individuals within the pro-racing fraternity have requested that the Greyhound Board of Great Britain remove the tick box option in Section D) of the GBGB Retirement Form (Euthanasia 'Injury not treated on economic grounds').
Caged Nationwide are aware that the Greyhound Board of Great Britain often claim transparency. Therefore we have published the following questions within an open letter. Anyone who shares our concerns may copy this letter and send it to you.
Please could you clarify whether the GBGB will be considering any calls for amendment of the GBGB green retirement form and if so, please provide answers to the following questions.
If the aforementioned option is removed, a number of crucial questions arise:
1. How will the removal of this option be policed to prevent greyhound owners/trainers destroying their dogs privately, either by use of an independent vet or via carrying out destruction of dogs themselves (increasing the risk of inhumane death), before ticking an alternative option on the retirement form?
If the GBGB quote transparency, should it not be essential that any removal of this option is wholly enforced, and implemented within the current rules of greyhound racing?
2. Would it not be controversial to remove the option ‘injury not treated on economic grounds’ while the following options remain:
2.1 ‘Unsuitable as a pet’
(Many rescues would argue that dogs who have issues can be rehabilitated after leaving the greyhound racing industry and that ALL dogs should be given the chance of a full assessment at a reputable rescue)
2.2 ‘No home or retirement placement could be found’
(Should it not be a duty of the GBGB to re home all dogs that have been specifically bred to bring profit for the greyhound racing industry?)
2.3 ‘On humane grounds due to untreatable injury or to cease suffering’
(If dogs are destroyed by a track vet, how can the injury be appropriately assessed without x-ray/specialist equipment?)
3. We understand that previously, some greyhound trainers have failed to submit retirement forms to the GBGB. While these completed forms are guarded by the Data Protection Act, and while there is no independent body to monitor whether they are successfully submitted, what guarantee do we have that any amendment will make any difference whatsoever?
Please acknowledge this letter within 3 working days. We would appreciate a full reply within 10 working days.
Kind regards
Manager of Welfare and Integrity Services at the Greyhound Board of Great Britain.
We understand that individuals within the pro-racing fraternity have requested that the Greyhound Board of Great Britain remove the tick box option in Section D) of the GBGB Retirement Form (Euthanasia 'Injury not treated on economic grounds').
Caged Nationwide are aware that the Greyhound Board of Great Britain often claim transparency. Therefore we have published the following questions within an open letter. Anyone who shares our concerns may copy this letter and send it to you.
Please could you clarify whether the GBGB will be considering any calls for amendment of the GBGB green retirement form and if so, please provide answers to the following questions.
If the aforementioned option is removed, a number of crucial questions arise:
1. How will the removal of this option be policed to prevent greyhound owners/trainers destroying their dogs privately, either by use of an independent vet or via carrying out destruction of dogs themselves (increasing the risk of inhumane death), before ticking an alternative option on the retirement form?
If the GBGB quote transparency, should it not be essential that any removal of this option is wholly enforced, and implemented within the current rules of greyhound racing?
2. Would it not be controversial to remove the option ‘injury not treated on economic grounds’ while the following options remain:
2.1 ‘Unsuitable as a pet’
(Many rescues would argue that dogs who have issues can be rehabilitated after leaving the greyhound racing industry and that ALL dogs should be given the chance of a full assessment at a reputable rescue)
2.2 ‘No home or retirement placement could be found’
(Should it not be a duty of the GBGB to re home all dogs that have been specifically bred to bring profit for the greyhound racing industry?)
2.3 ‘On humane grounds due to untreatable injury or to cease suffering’
(If dogs are destroyed by a track vet, how can the injury be appropriately assessed without x-ray/specialist equipment?)
3. We understand that previously, some greyhound trainers have failed to submit retirement forms to the GBGB. While these completed forms are guarded by the Data Protection Act, and while there is no independent body to monitor whether they are successfully submitted, what guarantee do we have that any amendment will make any difference whatsoever?
Please acknowledge this letter within 3 working days. We would appreciate a full reply within 10 working days.
Kind regards
